More US troops in Iraq?

[Theophylact]

Or fewer? When Bush speaks without a script, you never know what's going to come out:

As part of the briefing, Bush startled many by indicating that he could send more troops to Iraq, raising questions about Pentagon statements that the number would be reduced rather than increased in the coming year. He said he would do "whatever is necessary to secure Iraq," whether that means fewer troops or more troops.

His comment appeared to take even top aides by surprise. As the president spoke, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice glanced pointedly toward the press corps assembled inside Britain's Foreign Office, as if to suggest that there might be some clarification coming.

Later a top aide to Bush, who briefed reporters on condition that the aide not be identified, said that Bush was not announcing a change in policy and that expectations remained that troop levels would be reduced. "There is simply nothing to suggest that the number of American forces would need to increase," the aide said. "In fact, the conversations with the commanders have gone the other way."

Asked by a British journalist at the news conference about the British and American desire to bring home troops next year despite ongoing dangers, Bush challenged the questioner. "I said that we're going to bring our troops home starting next year? What I said is that we'll match the security needs with the number of troops necessary to secure Iraq. And we're relying upon our commanders on the ground to make those decisions."

Asked if he would keep a fixed number of troops in Iraq for a longer time, Bush replied: "We could have less troops in Iraq, we could have the same number of troops, we could have more troops in Iraq -- whatever is necessary to secure Iraq."

After Blair answered the same questions, Bush requested "a follow-up to the answer," adding that the U.S. troop level would depend on the number of Iraqi troops that could be trained.

Two weeks ago, the Pentagon announced plans to reduce U.S. forces in Iraq from the current 132,000 to 105,000 by May. Although it said those figures could change based on the security situation in Iraq, the plan is to reduce the current level of 17 brigades and four divisions to 13 brigades and three divisions.

Military experts have said it would be difficult to increase U.S. troop levels in Iraq without calling up more reserves and National Guard units, and extending rotations for the already stretched military.

[shahani]

When Bush speaks without a script, you never know what's going to come out:

Heheheee....

Even when he was giving a speech yesterday with Blair, he kept looking at his notes. They probably didn't have them projection prompters (Reagan used them very well -- he'd talk on complex issues for 30 minutes looking the camera straight on).

Bush was definitely reading something because he shuffled papers, looked down as if to refer, but what he read and what eventually came out of his mouth may not be the same.

Message sent to his brain from is eyes is not necessarily message received by his brain.

Or message uttered from his mouth.

But, he's a Bush so you have to discount some of this.

[pickel]

It should not lessen," Blair said, "in any way at all our commitment to Iraq. On the contrary, it shows how important it is to carry on until terrorism is defeated there, as well"

NEVER HAPPEN !!!!! They're in way over their heads and donot a a PLAN for the future. Another fine mess they've gotten us into.

[shahani]

Point is Bush is between a rock and a hard place.

Having made bad decisions earlier in the year, he is now inextricably intertwined in the web of lies he and his Administration told to the world.

[Epidemic]

Now or later this thing was going to come to a head. I preferr now. I still like the idea of shooting them in a battle field theater where the civil liberty folks have less say so.



As for changing their mind back and forth I don't like it. It shows that political forces are acting on the Military decisions being made. As such the iraq situation is in jeopardy. Generals in iraq should be calling the shots. Period. The only political control should be to remain in iraq or to leave. Other than that troop movements, rules of engagement, and manpower should be in the hands of the generals in theater.

[shahani]

Epidemic, you fail to grasp the simple fact that politics is the driver for any and all initiatives taken by a country.

Politicians, like Mr Rumsfeld, will never give up power to Generals.

In fact, politicians will interfere in everything and every issue where they smell power or money (or oil).

[Epidemic]

I still do not smell money or oil coming out of iraq.

[TOAD6147]

I still do not smell money or oil coming out of iraq.

Epidemic,
You have the olfactory equivilent of blinders on. A clothespin perhaps?

[Epidemic]

87 billion spent.

can not be recouped.

This was known ahead of time

not directly about money or oil.

[Theophylact]

From a piece in today's Washington Post:

Bush raised the possibility of increasing the number of U.S. troops in Iraq. When a reporter mentioned the United States' announced plans to reduce troop levels, the president responded: "We could have less troops in Iraq, we could have the same number of troops in Iraq, we could have more troops in Iraq -- whatever is necessary to secure Iraq."

A top aide to Bush, who briefed reporters after the news conference on condition that she not be identified, said that Bush was not announcing a change in policy and that expectations remained that troop levels would be reduced. "There is simply nothing to suggest that the number of American forces would need to increase," the official said. "In fact, the conversations with the commanders have gone the other way." [emphasis added]

That's what they call "deep background..."